#稳定币市场发展 After watching CZ's year-end Q&A about stablecoins, I have to say one thing — the evolution logic he described from "Stablecoin 1.0 to 2.0" hit home for me, considering the countless pitfalls I've seen over the years.

Stablecoin 1.0 is simply a crude arbitrage tool: you exchange your money for tokens, transfer across exchanges in seconds, institutions profit from arbitrage, and holders? They earn no interest. Tether has been raking in billions annually thanks to its first-mover advantage, and users are still working for them. That’s why so many projects want to share the pie — the cake is just too big.

But there's a hidden risk that newcomers often overlook: no yield means high holding costs. When the token price fluctuates, holding non-yielding stablecoins is equivalent to depreciation. So, in the 1.5 generation, projects like Ethena started adding yields. But what’s the problem? Limited adoption. Not all exchanges support it, and friction costs are there.

What does true 2.0 look like? Yield + liquidity + compliance — a trifecta. It sounds simple, but in reality, it requires managing exchange listings, ensuring sustainable yields, and passing regulatory scrutiny. The regulatory environment has indeed opened up now, but that doesn’t mean all projects can achieve this.

My warning is this — don’t be blinded by new stablecoin projects promising "higher yields." Look carefully: where does the yield come from? How sustainable is it? Is the liquidity truly broad? If any of these three aren’t solid, even the most appealing promises are just paper numbers. The way to survive long-term is to choose slowly, and avoid chasing those "revolutionary" stablecoins in the hype — unless they’ve really established themselves on mainstream exchanges.